Citation

Deakins J. J. Am. phys. surg. 2008; 13(2): 58-60.

Affiliation

University of Wyoming

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Many medical publications explicitly or implicitly support increasingly stringent gun-control laws, arguing from fear and promulgating assertions that are without foundation or that contradict existing evidence. They focus solely on harm caused by guns while neglecting benefits and basic human rights. Past Supreme Court decisions uphold the individual right to bear arms; a decision in , which challenges the District of Columbia gun ban, is pending.

The medical and public health case against the right to self defense with firearms, is primarily based on fear, buttressed by repetition of unfounded assertions or biased statistics. Logic, however, dictates that risks be weighed against benefits, and that an objective, complete assessment be made. Moreover, the inestimable importance of protecting liberty and individual rights requires that certain risks must be taken. The fundamental natural right of individuals to keep and bear arms is recognized in historical Supreme Court decisions, including some not specifically based on the Second Amendment.